Tag Archives: trump

Is China Really Killing Us?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump insists that China, Japan, and Mexico are stealing our jobs. Are they? A lot of people sure believe it. Carrier recently announced they were moving a factory to Mexico, which produced a viral video of worker reaction that’s been viewed more than 3 million times in three days. It captured in a nutshell the fear of offshoring that Trump appeals to.

So how many jobs does the United States lose each year to offshoring? Surprisingly, nobody knows. The federal government doesn’t try to track this, and companies are reluctant to talk about it. Here’s a miscellaneous sampling of various estimates:

In a report for the year 2004, BLS estimated that out of 1 million layoffs, about 16,000 represented workers whose jobs were relocated outside the country.
The Hackett Group estimates that “business-services jobs in big American and European companies” were relocated at about the rate of 150,000 per year between 2002 and 2016.
Alan Blinder, an offshoring hawk, estimated in 2006 that “offshoring to date has cost fewer than a million American service jobs, maybe a lot fewer.” In other words, maybe around 50-100,000 jobs per year.
EPI estimates that offshoring to China “eliminated or displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs” between 2001 and 2013. That’s about 250,000 jobs per year.
Forrester estimates that 3.4 million service-sector jobs were lost to offshoring between 2003 and 2015. That comes to about 300,000 jobs per year.

So we have estimates for all jobs in 2004; business services jobs in both Europe and the US between 2002-16; total jobs through 2006; total jobs to China between 2001-13; and all service-sector jobs between 2003-15. If I had to put all this together and average the high and low estimates, my horseback guess is that maybe we’re losing a total of about 400,000 jobs per year to offshoring.

That’s about 0.3 percent of America’s 150 million jobs.

Now, this is plainly not the whole picture. Partly this is because there are lots of different things that can arguably be called “offshoring.” There’s the classic version, where you close down a plant in America and move it somewhere else. But there are also cases of brand new plants being built overseas. Is this offshoring, or is it a case of wanting to build stuff near a local market? Could be a bit of both. Then there are plant closures due to overseas competition. Technically, nothing is being offshored, but jobs are certainly being lost. And of course, all of these things contribute to pressure that keeps wages low.

Beyond that, offshoring can stand in for a host of other fears. Workers are scared of losing their jobs to automation; of equity buyouts from the Bain Capitals of the world; of losing the ability to work thanks to disability; or of being laid off and never finding a good job when the economy recovers.

In other words, 0.3 percent might not seem like much, but it stands in for a potentially much scarier number. That said, here’s the thing I’m a little puzzled by: Donald Trump’s schtick is nothing new. Anyone my age remembers this. In the 80s, it was Japan that was taking all our jobs and wrecking our economy. And it was no joke. There was real fear and real rage about this. Then, in the early 90s, it was Mexico and NAFTA. Later in the decade it was the Asian Tigers. (Remember them?) Now, for the last decade or so, it’s been China. American workers have been in a fever about losing their jobs to foreigners for more than 30 years.

And yet, we’re supposed to believe that this is the reason for all the blue-collar anger that’s come out of nowhere to power the Trump phenomenon. But it doesn’t add up. Very few workers are actually in danger of losing their jobs to offshoring. And even when you add in all the other stuff, the job market right now is actually in pretty solid shape. It’s not booming, but it’s not bad. True, there’s some evidence of permanent job loss from the Great Recession, but it’s a few percent of the workforce at most. It’s not enough to produce huge rallies for a blustering xenophobe. What’s more, the evidence from New Hampshire suggests that Trump is pulling support from nearly every demographic group: rich and poor, men and women, young and old, blue collar and white collar, dropouts and college grads, conservatives and moderates. They can’t all be in a state of hysteria about China and Mexico taking their jobs.

Just to be crystal clear: This isn’t a matter of wondering why cool logic doesn’t prevail among the electorate. What I’m wondering more about is this: what are the lived, ground-level issues that are galvanizing Trump’s supporters? The job market simply doesn’t seem to be in bad enough shape—or in different enough shape—to be responsible for a sea change in attitudes. So what is it?

The obvious response is that I’m an idiot. Middle-class incomes have been sluggish for decades, while CEOs and bankers have been raking in obscene paychecks. Wages flatlined completely about 15 years ago, and then plummeted during the Great Recession. Millions of people lost their jobs for frighteningly long periods during the recession; lost their houses; and lost their dignity. Maybe things are a bit better now, but not enough to make up for nearly a decade of misery. What’s changed, then, is simply that people have finally gotten fed up.

The other obvious response is that I’m an idiot. Everyone knows that “economic anxiety” is just a wink-wink-nudge-nudge code word for ordinary racism. That’s what binds together all of Trump’s most popular positions. His supporters don’t like Asians, don’t like Mexicans, don’t like Muslims, and don’t like blacks. “China is killing us” is just a clever way to appeal to that racism in the guise of economic insecurity. Ditto for building a wall, keeping out Muslims, and “not having time for all that PC stuff.”

Yet another obvious response is that I’m an idiot. Trump’s supporters aren’t reacting to their own lived experiences so much as they’re responding to the funhouse version they hear every day from Fox and Drudge and the radio blowhards—and the Republican candidates. If you listened to these guys, you too would think America was just one presidential term away from moral degeneration and economic collapse.

So…I don’t know. A cold look at economic time series data suggests that the economy and the job market are humming along fairly well. Polling data suggests that most people are pretty satisfied with their lives. China and Mexico aren’t really killing us. I’m not trying to naively pretend that everything is hunky dory and Nigerian princes are all showering us in wire transfers, but the truth is that the vast majority of Americans are in tolerably good financial shape right now. Of course, Republicans are doing their best to pretend otherwise, and Democrats are inexplicably willing to go along with their dour predictions of doom. Maybe that’s enough all by itself to explain the booming business in apocalyptic stories about economic anxiety. But I still think there’s something missing here. I’m just not sure what.

Read this article – 

Is China Really Killing Us?

Posted in alo, Anker, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is China Really Killing Us?

Republican Tax Plans Will Be Great for the Ri—zzzzz

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Our good friends at the Tax Policy Center have now analyzed—if that’s the right word—the tax plans of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio. You can get all the details at their site, but if you just want the bottom line, you’ve come to the right place.

The chart on the left shows who benefits the most from each tax plan. Unsurprisingly, they’re all about the same: middle income taxpayers would see their take-home pay go up 3 or 4 percent, while the rich would see it go up a whopping 10-17 percent. On the deficit side of things, everyone’s a budget buster. Rubio and Bush would pile up the red ink by $7 trillion or so (over ten years) while Trump would clock in at about $9 trillion. That compares to a current national debt of $14 trillion.

No one will care, of course, and no one will even bother questioning any of them about this. After all, we already know they’ll just declare that their tax cuts will supercharge the economy and pay for themselves. They can say it in their sleep. Then Trump will say something stupid, or Rubio will break his tooth on a Twix bar, and we’ll move on.

Read more:

Republican Tax Plans Will Be Great for the Ri—zzzzz

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republican Tax Plans Will Be Great for the Ri—zzzzz

Coming Soon: The Bush-Kasich Death Match

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So far, the Republican presidential contest has been like a Quentin Tarantino film in which the main characters end up in a circular firing squad or a multisided Mexican standoff and don’t know whom to target—or from which direction an attack might come. Donald Trump has rotated the target of his volleys, and the other Republican contenders have often seemed puzzled whether to go after the front-runner or focus on a candidate who is a more direct competitor for a certain slice of the GOP electorate.

Trump, at different times, has needled Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. Bush, at one point, attempted—feebly— to take a poke at Trump. Bush and Marco Rubio have tangled with each other. Cruz and Rubio have done the same. On Saturday night, in the most consequential clash of the campaign, Chris Christie unloaded on Rubio during the New Hampshire debate, forcing the one-term senator to commit a blunder that may have derailed his campaign permanently. Trump, Cruz, Kasich, and Bush—especially Bush—no doubt appreciated this greatly, though the harsh assault did not help Christie, who on Wednesday appeared set to suspend his campaign. As the non-Trump field has shifted, the one-on-ones have changed. And with the New Hampshire results, it seems inevitable that a coming matchup will pit Kasich against Bush.

This could be an odd battle. Kasich placed second in New Hampshire, Bush came in fourth, and both are governors (Bush is an ex-) who emphasize their policy chops and claim they want to stay positive. (Bush has referred to immigration to the United States as an “act of love,” and Kasich, as part of his campaign pitch, has called on people to slow down and listen more to each other.) Both are from and pals of the GOP establishment. Both tout their executive experience and claim to have reasonable demeanors. Both seek to win the fancy of moderate, suburban Republicans. Each probably cannot survive long in the race without knocking the other out—sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading »

Read article here:

Coming Soon: The Bush-Kasich Death Match

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coming Soon: The Bush-Kasich Death Match

How Tom Brady and Deflategate Explain Donald Trump’s New Hampshire Appeal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

New Hampshire voters are angry. They believe a corrupt and power-hungry band of millionaire and billionaire families are running America into the ground, led by a coddled, vindictive, and dictatorial leader who doesn’t share their values and won’t help them win again.

Which is why they think NFL commissioner Roger Goodell needs to go.

“I’d like to moon him,” said Roberto Cassotto of Hampton, New Hampshire, as he waited in line for a Donald Trump rally on Thursday in Portsmouth.

Continue Reading »

Source:

How Tom Brady and Deflategate Explain Donald Trump’s New Hampshire Appeal

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Tom Brady and Deflategate Explain Donald Trump’s New Hampshire Appeal

Watch the Most Awkward Debate Kickoff Ever

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The beginning of the Republican primary debate in New Hampshire Thursday night may go down as the most awkward in memory.

It all started when Ben Carson failed to walk onstage when his name was called, causing a bottleneck in the wings that the other candidates had to walk around. Then Donald Trump apparently didn’t hear his name and stood by Carson while other candidates walked by the two of them. On top of it all, the ABC News moderators forgot about John Kasich, leaving an empty podium on stage and one Ohio governor hovering off to the side.

Just watch this video, because a debate kickoff this awkward doesn’t happen often.

Source: 

Watch the Most Awkward Debate Kickoff Ever

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch the Most Awkward Debate Kickoff Ever

Jeb Bush on Trump: "He Needs Therapy"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“A steady hand.” Jeb Bush has used that phrase repeatedly throughout the campaign, as he attempts to convince voters that he’s the tried and tested choice for president—the anti-Donald Trump. Bush made that case again today, ahead of Saturday’s Republican debate, at a crowded town hall meeting in Bedford, New Hampshire. Dressed casually in a black fleece and seeming at ease as he heads toward a primary that could either finish off his sputtering campaign or give it the momentum to fight on, Bush waxed wonkishly on everything from corporate inversions to student debt to mental health policy. But he also sharpened his attacks on Trump and Ted Cruz, the GOP front-runners who, he argues, can’t be trusted to steer the ship of state.

“I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but the guy needs therapy,” Bush said of Trump. And he derided Cruz for talking “about carpet bombing as though that is a policy.”

Continue Reading »

More: 

Jeb Bush on Trump: "He Needs Therapy"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush on Trump: "He Needs Therapy"

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A few years ago Jonathan Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind, an attempt to understand the way different people view morality. I won’t say that I bought his premise completely, but I did find it interesting and useful. In a nutshell, Haidt suggests that we all view morality through the lens of six different “foundations”—and the amount we value each foundation is crucial to understanding our political differences. Conservatives, for example, tend to view “proportionality”—an eye for an eye—as a key moral concern, while liberals tend to view “care/harm”—showing kindness to other people—as a key moral attribute. You can read more about it here.

So which presidential candidates appeal to which kinds of people? Over at Vox, Haidt and Emily Ekins write about some recent research Ekins did on supporters of various presidential candidates. I’ve condensed and excerpted the results in the chart on the right. As you can see, Democrats tend to value care but not proportionality. Republicans are just the opposite. No surprise there. But were there any moral values that were unusually strong for different candidates even after controlling for ideology and demographics?

Yes. Sanders supporters scored extremely low on the authority axis while Trump supporters scored high on authority and low on the care axis. Outside of the usual finding for proportionality, that’s it. Hillary Clinton supporters, in particular, were entirely middle-of-the-road: “Moral Foundations do not significantly predict a vote for Hillary Clinton; demographic variables seem to be all you need to predict her support (being female, nonwhite, and higher-income are all good predictors).”

So there you have it. Generally speaking, if you value proportionality but not care, you’re a Republican. If you value care but not proportionality, you’re a Democrat. Beyond that, if your world view values authority—even compared to others who are similar to you—you’re probably attracted to Donald Trump. If you’re unusually resistant to authority, you’re probably attracted to Bernie Sanders. The authors summarize the presidential race this way:

Bernie Sanders draws young liberal voters who have a strong desire for individual autonomy and place less value on social conformity and tradition. This likely leads them to appreciate Sanders’s libertarian streak and non-interventionist foreign policy. Once again, Hillary Clinton finds herself attracting more conservative Democratic voters who respect her tougher style, moderated positions, and more hawkish stance on foreign policy.

….On the Republican side…despite Trump’s longevity in the polls, authoritarianism is clearly not the only dynamic going on in the Republican race. In fact, the greatest differences by far in the simple foundation scores are on proportionality. Cruz and Rubio draw the extreme proportionalists — the Republicans who think it’s important to “let unsuccessful people fail and suffer the consequences,” as one of our questions put it.

….One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump’s prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump.

So which moral foundations define you? If you’re curious, click here and take the test.

Read the article: 

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Conservative Culture and the Fear of Reverse Racism

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Bruce Bartlett has written a new paper that examines the role of “reverse racism” in the rise of Donald Trump. Bartlett touches on a number of topics—e.g., changing demographics, partisan realignment, the media promotion of race as an in-group marker—but the cornerstone of his narrative is a simple recognition that fear of reverse racism is deep and pervasive among white Americans. Here’s the basic lay of the land from a bit of research done a few years ago by Michael Norton and Samuel Sommers:

As you can see, everyone agrees that racism was endemic in the 50s, and everyone agrees that it’s improved since then. But among whites, a majority believe that racism against blacks has improved so much—and reverse racism against whites has intensified so much—that today there’s literally more bias against whites than against blacks.

The Norton-Summers study doesn’t break down racial views further, but it’s a safe guess that fears of reverse racism are concentrated primarily among political conservatives—encouraged on a near daily basis by talk radio, Fox News, and Republican politicians. Given this, it’s hardly any wonder that Trump’s barely-coded appeals to racial resentment have resonated so strongly among Republican voters. Trump himself may or may not have any staying power, but his basic appeal is rooted in a culture of white grievance that’s been growing for years and is likely to keep growing in the future as white majorities continue to shrink. No matter what happens to Trump himself, he’s mainstreamed white victimhood as a political force to be reckoned with for the foreseeable future.

Original link: 

Conservative Culture and the Fear of Reverse Racism

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservative Culture and the Fear of Reverse Racism

Donald Trump Lost the Iowa Caucus. Now He’s Whining on Twitter.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is such an awesome bit of whining from Donald Trump that I felt I had to share it. I think we need a new word for this. Trump+whining = Twining. Or Trump + griping = Triping. Or something. Maybe figure out a way to add the concept that he’s actually a winner even when he’s objectively a failure. That might take some kind of German construction, though.

See more here: 

Donald Trump Lost the Iowa Caucus. Now He’s Whining on Twitter.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Lost the Iowa Caucus. Now He’s Whining on Twitter.

Big Donors Have Fled Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This summer, Jeb Bush’s warchest seemed unbeatable. In July, the pro-Bush super-PAC, Right to Rise, announced a record haul of $103 million. Bush insiders said at the time that this staggering total was meant to “shock and awe” the former Florida governor’s competitors and pressure uncommitted donors to either climb on the bandwagon or stay the hell out of the way. Now it’s Right to Rise’s fundraisers who must be feeling shocked and awed: According to just-released disclosures, they managed to raise just $15.1 million during the second half of the year, as Bush fell from presumptive favorite to Donald Trump’s favorite punching bag.

In July, when the super-PAC’s first-half numbers were released, we counted at least 23 donors who gave $1 million or more to Right to Rise. This time, there was just one donor who gave more than $500,000—former AIG chairman and CEO, Hank Greenberg, who donated a whopping $10 million. And where during the first half of the year Right to Rise had 9,400 donors, it reported just 155 contributors in its latest disclosure.

Last spring, the super-PAC was so worried about appearing elitist and hurting Bush’s “man-of-the-people” image that it instructed donors to hold off on making any donations larger than $1 million. According to its latest filing, the super-PAC still has $54 million in cash (after having blown more than $58 million), but still, Right to Rise officials must be regretting that decision now.

Follow this link: 

Big Donors Have Fled Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Donors Have Fled Jeb Bush’s Super-PAC